Federation of Retired LIC Class I Officers' Associations
Ecircular DK-42
7thOct. 2018
Friends,
I have been off the 'air' for a while. As you know we are moving into the next phase in our major litigation in the SC. We would really have liked to go ahead with the most important agenda of Revision/up-gradation, as a 'do or die' battle for the Pensioner community. When we look around us, we find that the central Govt Pensioners, get a periodic adjustment to keep the principle of 'Parity' with the later date retirees. The Central Govt. pension rules 1972 does not include a clause for such Revision. The In-service employees of LIC too get a 5 yearly Revision though there is no backing in the Staff Regulations to enable this. So 'no Rule', is really no rule, to rule out, on our demand for Revision.
Further, it is a bit, disheartening to note that LIC which took an official stand to propose for Pension Revision , as far back as 2001, after getting the Board Approval through an appropriate Resolution, turning around now to deny our claim for revision of Pension. There is a letter obtained through the route of RTI Act, which is from ED Per/HRD of LIC to the Jt. Secretary Finance, sent on 31st Dec 2001, clearly giving reasons why revision in Pension should be approved by the Central Govt. The Caption to that letter reads -- "Amendments to LIC of India (Employees) Pension Rules 1995 -- Post Retirement Commercial employment and Upgrading of Basic Pension". Under point 4 of the letter it states -- "The matter was also put up to the Board for its Approval in its aforesaid Meeting. The Board has approved the proposal as contained in the Board Note and has suggested that the matter shall be given a prospective effect after seeking the approval of the Govt."
There has since been no official stand taken to reverse that position. It is therefore unethical for the LIC to now take a different stand on this issue in Court. It almost appears that anything that suits the moment can be taken in Court, to win a point! Court- craft has evolved over time, to justify any position, being taken, that carries currency in court, to get a decision of one's seeking.
Another sad part of such institutional 'loss of values', is clearly evidenced, in the manner the Directions of the Court were interpreted, in assuming the wrong base date, for Arrears to be paid to the Pre-97 retirees. Their contention on this, is that the 1998 Petition, the earliest one, as per the Court Directive, did not pertain to DR issue! I quote verbatim from the concluding part of that 1998 Asthana Petition, which is the Prayer to the Court: ..."It is therefore , most respectfully prayed that this honourable court, may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the Nonpetitioners to pay the Dearness Relief as per rule 5 of the Revision Rules .....". This unfortunately was not clear enough for the Brain-Trust in the LIC to interpret it as a petition regarding DR relief!! Or was it a contrived idea to deny the legitimate dues to the aged Retirees of pre-1997?
If one looked at the Judgment of the Jaipur HC on this petition, it is unmistakably clear that the whole discussion there, is on the aspect of DR discrimination, against the Pre-97 retirees. But then, who wants to be fair and square in treating the Seniors, who built this organization in the early days? The mind-set of the LIC management, handling this matter, was into game-playing - a game in which they wanted to use their pre-emptive authority to' win', and gloat over their artfulness, in being able to out-wit the retirees, and the Court, all in one shot! They hold the gun, and you are nowhere, in the contest of right from wrong!
This unfortunate attitude of manipulating to 'win' in a game-playing mode, is amply manifest even in the Counter the LIC has filed, against our Petition in the Kerala HC, on the 92-93 issue, of applying the MC Jain judgment to others in similar position. The SC , while deciding on the Appeal filed by LIC, in the MC Jain case (where, in the Jaipur HC, Sri Jain had won the case, against LIC, for their denying re-fixation from the date of the revision only to Class I), had stated in just two lines, that having regard to the "peculiar facts and circumstances of the case", the SC does not see merit in admitting the Appeal of LIC, and therefore it stands Dismissed.
In the LIC Counter in the Kerala HC, the LIC has tried to take undue, and mischievous advantage, of the SC wordings, to state that the 'peculiar facts and circumstances' of the case stated by the SC in its Dismissal Order of LIC's Appeal, in MC Jain's case, refers to 'special' circumstances involved in MC Jain's case which cannot be applied to other retirees, in the same period - band, of denial !
If Court gives them a certain leverage to manipulate to win, that is perfectly on! There is no moral ground, as an institution, to eschew certain unethical methods, where it is an all out attempt to win at any cost! This is how, a great institution is brought down in stature, to the levels of individuals manning it, who can only think of winning, irrespective of how they go on record, and what despicable positions they assume, to gain their end of winning! What they don't perhaps remember is that, one day, they will be here, where we are now, and their next generation of leadership would have been inducted into this Hall of Shame against them! Are we not crudely reminded of the Rule of Aurangzeb, of hundreds of years ago, where anything was right, if it was to win a war!?
It is reliably learnt from the SC circles, that our case is the only one listed for 11th Oct (listed as No 1), apart from a few ( Miscellaneous) Admission cases. So, if things proceed as they are now, without any sudden butting in of influential / high profile cases, we should be getting a fair bit of time on our case. It is also learnt that the case is coming up before the same Bench headed by Sri Madan Lokur in Court No 2. Let's hope for the best.
So friends, the 11th Oct Hearing in the SC, is a crucial one for us to take things forward , particularly on the matter of Revision in Pension, just as in Central Govt Retirees' case, to keep us in some form of 'Parity' with later retirees. Our attempt will be to submit before the SC in writing that the compliance on the Arrears to Pre-97 retirees has been a fiasco of sorts, and without waiting to discuss it further, would want to proceed with the Points in the SLP, and mainly on Revision/Up-gradation of Pension. We shall revert to you as soon as there is something to Report.
With Best Wishes
D.Krishnan. General Secretary
6-10-2018
No comments:
Post a Comment